ID And Plating 2d Blue

If I turn the light on my phone and hold the stamp over it from a slight distance, the stamp is illuminated very nicely - the 5 is clearly visible in the margins. maybe a previous owner marked it as '58 for 1858 thinking SG45? Now, dark blue or blue? Ill have to look when I get home to see if I have either that I can compare it to. I am still intrigued by the amount of ink that seems to have been pushed out so that the white next to the areas that I marked are popping out so much and seem to have "depth". As mentioned, SG 46 or 47....

The one appears in the scroll to the left of the lips and the 5 is vaguely visible in front of the bridge of the nose. Similarly, the one to the right shows just above the black blob of the cancellation halfway up the stamp. In that blob, at the top of the red squiggly line, the 5 is vaguely visible.

As for the suggestion the 58 refers to the date of issue: I think vayolene is correct. Few album manufacturers discern between the two versions of this stamp first issued in 1858. On the other hand, the stamp with these thin lines was not issued until 1869.

unrelated, lastly for this one, what does Do stand for? I dont see it anywhere in the glossary.

Ditto.

Only the non-fugitive stamps Rod

Well, I had to try.... All cleaned up. Or, as much as their going to get.

pretty sweet stamp.

Nice work Stamps4Life

I only have a couple of the 2d but have hundreds of the 1d. They've all survived a soaking without any problems.

If you're only soaking to remove a hinge remain, it will float off VERY quickly 99.9% of the time. I always watch and as soon as it's off, I remove the stamp so it doesn't get even remotely waterlogged.

Thank you. I may have taken it a little too far. But there was a lot of gunk and a black spot or 2. Thank you for the tip and encouragement. Live and learn.

#21 on "rag stock paper" 1857